That the "average" aikidoka's application of such techniques is ineffective is moot. It's hardly the fault of the art, and more to do with either the teaching method, or the student's skill level or ability, or BOTH. Again, like fileboy, you insist on equating your limited observation and experience of a general lack of ability with a blanket generalization of ineffectiveness of the art. And that makes your "empirical evidence" more valid HOW?

If all you got to go on is an empirically tenuous, limited and subjective observation and experience, that aikido "technique" is ineffective, because the person(s) applying it were ineffective, therefore the art is ineffective, and therefore would not work, then I see this discussion going nowhere... FAST.

Eyrie, don't confuse him with facts. He has the "definitive text" on Aikido... John Stevens' "The Way of Harmony", so I'm sure his level of knowledge about the subject is far superior to those of us mere mortals who have been practicing for nearly a quarter of a century with mere students of O'Sensei's chief instructor's deshis and the like. To think... I could have saved myself all that practice, and training by just going to Amazon... silly me.

I AM confused about one thing, however... if Aikido is so weak, why did guys like Mifune and the Kodokan instructors come study with O'Sensei? Was that to improve their superiority complex? Surely it wasn't to improve their technique... since Aikido is so "weak".

When Toyoda Sensei and I practiced together, I always felt like I'd been hit by a steamroller... so I can only imagine what practicing a "strong" art would have done to me. Luckily, I had only gotten black belts in karate, Judo, and Jujutsu before I started Aikido training... so I had something to fall back on in case the Aikido didn't work out... almost makes me want to turn in my teaching licenses. I wouldn't want anybody to mistake something I did in Aikido for one of those other superior arts... and now, you've gone and told on me by citing which techniques are "common" to "other arts"... and I thought we were friends...

_________________________
What man is a man that does not make the world a better place?... from "Kingdom of Heaven"

Quote:Such wonderful maturity John... Is it any wonder with such shining beacons of forum behaviour, from current and former moderators no less, that this place has descended into the hallowed depths of Ad City for the unwashed masses of pre-pubescent and testosterone-challenged wannabees?

I detect sarcasm, lol. Touche'. However, why exactly IS the post so "immature"?

A. Because I said an expletive?

B. Because I worded it like I did?

C. Because that was a convenient way of slamming a post that was nothing but the plain truth and you just didn't feel like dealing with it?

If it's A, I am a bad guy and you obviously are in a better position to judge. If its B, deal with it. My guess is, C.

Quote:Respectfully, if the art isn't producing as a whole then it is a weakness in the art. If out of 50 aikido dojo's there are only two worth a crp then there is a weakness in the art. How many aikidoka will turn out good or decent vs. the terrible?

Um... that's kinda flawed logic. You know what a Bell curve is? Or how it applies in education and learning circles? So, using your same flawed logic... is that a weakness of the school, curriculum or education system that only a handful of students top the grade, or is it a performance issue related to either lecturers or students, or both?

Quote:I thought we were talking about aikido in an mma setting anyway?

Because *some* people insist on steering the discussion towards the (in THEIR opinion) "questionable" effectiveness of aikido - as an art - generally, based on bogus statistics (2 out of 50?), rather than focus on how aikido could be applied/not applied in an MMA format. Subtle difference Brian... REAL subtle difference.

I have some idea of what a bell curve is. I Is a Little edumacated.... The thing is, the bell curve has nothing to do with my statements. Read through them again slowly and try to reply rationally this time. The rest is just as much gibberish.

The thread has become pointless for me. I will not continue to argue with irrational people. feel free to have the last word.....

_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<

My bad... I should keep my mouth shut You're right, if these self-styled experts on the ineffectiveness of Aikido could not glean that from the countless YouTube videos, then there's no sense in pointing out the obvious.

As if John Stevens is the only definitive and authoritative source of Aikido. Even his teacher, Shirata, openly admits to being a part-time martial artist and not a very good one at that.

I don't know about you, but I'm outta here. Seems like this place is justifiably deserving of its reputation as an advertising haven for its predominantly pre-pubescent, testosterone-challenged VTG Mortal Kombat audience.

I guess I naively expected that current and former mods would attempt to raise the level of discussion rather than degenerate into name-calling, art-bashing, video and off-line challenges. Or at least have the maturity and decency to front up to the target of one's challenge, as is the accepted protocol for issuing challenges in the "real" MA world.

Anyhow, I've got work to do, and training in between. Haven't got time to engage in same circular arguments regarding the inefficacy of Aikido.

Howdy all,Total noob to this forum (1st post!) and somewhat new to Aikido, but thought I'd throw my $.02 into the flame pit

Aikido as I see it is a "formless" martial art, which is based on principles of physics and body mechanics rather than specific techniques which only apply in a finite set of situations.

The toughest problem to solve in Aikido is how to teach such a formless martial art in a structured way. For this, some basic techniques are taught that work as specific applications of Aiki principles, but may rarely manifest themselves in a streetfight.

Because Aikido is more of a framework than an instruction manual, what one strives to learn through the study of Aikido is how to apply the principles (maintaining your balance, compromising your opponents' balance, focusing your power through the coordination of seemingly unrelated muscles, etc.) rather than specific techniques (like Tsuki Kotegaeshi). I think this is lost on many people, including some black belts who still believe that Aikido is about individual techniques.

In any fight, whether MMA or a real fight, aiki principles can help one maintain their balance, compromise their opponent's balance, and subdue their opponent with less effort than the struggling that tends to occur otherwise. The difference between Aikido and other MAs is that Aikido is devoted solely to exploring the worlds of balance, energy, and control. I believe this actually makes it more flexible than MAs that teach only a finite set of techniques.

As I said earlier, take this with a grain of salt. But maybe not too big a grain

Quote:Gee Matt, and your generalization of ALL aikido as ineffectual, based on your limited exposure and experience is somehow more valid? Talk about statistical and empirical validity...

Again, twisting my words and making strawman arguments. I did not say *ALL* Aikido - I said generally. "Generally" does not mean "all". And "generally" does not imply any scientific statistical analysis - I was very clear to mention that I was talking from my experience. Perhaps if you and Grady were'nt so emotional, you might be able to read my posts objectively.

Quote:if that's not "principle" and/of "technique" then what is?

Not sure what your point is. Most "principles" of martial arts are similar - no disagreement there. But if you take practitioners of two styles, and one of them does not practice with resistance, it is likely that the other will be more effective. Regardless of how similar the principles are.

Quote:That the "average" aikidoka's application of such techniques is ineffective is moot.

That is totally wrong, it is EXACTLY the point.

Quote:If all you got to go on is an empirically tenuous, limited and subjective observation and experience, that aikido "technique" is ineffective, because the person(s) applying it were ineffective, therefore the art is ineffective, and therefore would not work,

Therefore, we should all ignore your and Grady's chest beating about beating Anderson Silva and 5th-degree Goju guys? Can't have it both ways, my friend.

Quote:As if John Stevens is the only definitive and authoritative source of Aikido. Even his teacher, Shirata, openly admits to being a part-time martial artist and not a very good one at that.

Another strawman. I never said Stevens was "the definitive and authoritative source of Aikido." Merely pointing out that he learned from "the source" of Aikido, and would be considered by most people (except you and Grady apparently, LOL) as a reliable source.

Might want to switch to decaf, guys. And I'm quietly enjoying the irony of Eyrie (who has never met anyone on the forum or even posted a video, but writes of defeating jujitsu black belts and Goju 5th degrees) talking about all the other "VTG"s here.

Grady -

Quote:He has the "definitive text" on Aikido... John Stevens' "The Way of Harmony", so I'm sure his level of knowledge about the subject is far superior to those of us mere mortals who have been practicing for nearly a quarter of a century with mere students of O'Sensei's chief instructor's deshis and the like. To think... I could have saved myself all that practice, and training by just going to Amazon... silly me.

Shirata Rinjiro was a direct student of Ueshiba, as was Stevens (I could be wrong about that), so I consider them good sources. Not sure what your point is.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

FWIW, I have no emotional dog in this fight But I do want to address the following logical fallacies in the general line of argument.

The following assertions were made, that:A. Most aikidoka are generally ineffectiveB. Aikido techniques are ineffective C. Therefore Aikido is ineffective

Even though assertion A is a fallacious biased sample, let's say for argument's sake, I grant you A - that the bell is skewed to the left. To which I have already addressed this argument that the causative effect could be either the result of poor teaching standards or low student quality - and to which no one has made a counter-argument.

Even if A is true, there is no proof that assertion B is true on its own merit. It is a logical fallacy to assert that B is true because A is true. Or that A is true because B is true. Grady & I have also addressed this argument as being a deficiency in skills and experience and/or application. Again, no one has made a valid counter-argument.

In any case, even if either A or B are equally true, it certainly does not imply that C is true. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc!

If you, Brian or John wish to address any of these arguments, feel free. Or if people wish to continue the childish behaviour, feel free too - just don't expect a direct response.